IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:13.05.2026 TEJO DEVI AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS HARJINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Sagar Aggarwal, Advocate and Mr. Abhiman Kansal, Advocate for appellants.

Mr. R.C. Kappor, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

***

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

Present appeal has been filed by appellants-claimants being aggrieved by dismissal of their claim petition vide award dated 12.01.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), whereby learned Tribunal had held that appellants-claimants have failed to prove involvement of the tractor bearing registration No.HR-01H-2598 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) in causing the accident dated 15.03.2004.

2. As per case of appellants-claimants, accident had taken place on 15.03.2004, when Gurcharan Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) along with Amarjeet Singh and Jaswant Singh were going from Shahabad to their village Kahangarh on their respective bicycles. At about 08:30 p.m. when they crossed village Deeg and reached 01 kilometer towards Kharinda side, in the meantime, offending vehicle being driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently came from opposite side and had struck against the bicycle of Gurcharan Singh after coming on the wrong side of the road. On account of hit by offending vehicle, deceased had fallen from his bicycle and had suffered multiple injuries. Respondent No.1 succeeded in running away from the spot. In the meanwhile, one motorcyclist, namely Surinder Singh came at the spot and he along with Jawant Singh had chased the offending vehicle and had noted its registration number. It was claimed that accident had taken place on account of sole rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent-driver. It was further asserted that an FIR No.94 under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC was registered against respondent No.1 on

16.03.2004 in Police Station Shahabad.

3. Respondents No.1 and 2 had simply denied the accident in totality. They had claimed that a false FIR was lodged against respondent No.1 and offending vehicle was never involved in causing accident dated

15.03.2004.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:-

i. Whether the accident in question was resulting into death of Gurcharan Singh on 15.03.2004 in the area of village Deeg, Police Station, Shahabad, on account of rash and negligent driving of tractor-trolley No.HR-01H-2598 by its driver Harjinder Singh, respondent no.1? OPP ii. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so, to what effect and from whom?

OPP iii. Whether the respondent No.1, driver of the tractor-trolley in question was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident in question? OPR iv. Whether the claim petition has been filed by claimants in collusion with respondents No.1 and 2? OPR v. Relief.

5. Learned Tribunal while examining issue No.1 had come to the conclusion that appellants-claimants have failed to prove involvement of offending vehicle in accident dated 15.03.2004. The finding of learned Tribunal on issue No.1 is being assailed by appellants-claimants.

6. In order to prove accident to be result of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent No.1, appellants-claimants have duly examined eye witness and author of FIR-Amarjeet Singh as PW3, motorcyclist Surinder Singh who chased offending vehicle and noted its number as PW-4 and investigating officer as PW-2.

7. It is worth noticing that Amarjeet Singh is author of FIR No.94 dated 16.03.2004. Amarjeet Singh, in his statement while appearing as PW3, had reiterated manner of occurrence as was stated by appellants-claimants in their claim petition alleging that accident was caused by offending vehicle No.HR-01H 2598 driven by respondent No.1. Further, to cor